Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers

From: "Wu, Hao A" <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: "Ni, Ruiyu" <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>,
	"Tian, Feng" <feng.tian@intel.com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
	"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	"Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:56:39 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <B80AF82E9BFB8E4FBD8C89DA810C6A0931D2968C@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9XMkEUyRym8kLz+hU46xvY30J=uWy-yyvPm_nnqhe4jw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ard,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard
> Biesheuvel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:00 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu; Tian, Feng; Ard Biesheuvel; Wu, Hao A; Leif Lindholm; Kinney,
> Michael D; Zeng, Star
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v4 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers
> 
> On 7 December 2017 at 22:43, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > Many SDHCI implementations exist that are almost spec complicant, and
> > could be driven by the generic SD/MMC host controller driver except
> > for some minimal necessary init time tweaks.
> >
> > Adding such tweaks to the generic driver is undesirable. On the other
> > hand, forking the driver for every platform that has such a SDHCI
> > controller is problematic when it comes to upstreaming and ongoing
> > maintenance (which is arguably the point of upstreaming in the first
> > place).
> >
> > So these patches propose a workaround that is minimally invasive on the
> > EDK2 side, but gives platforms a lot of leeway when it comes to applying
> > SDHCI quirks.
> >
> > Changes since v3:
> > - remove PassThru argument from protocol members: it is unclear whether the
> >   protocol is available when the override protocol is invoked, and my
> >   example use case does not need it
> > - replace incorrect HandleProtocol with LocateProtocol, given that the
> override
> >   protocol is now a singleton instance
> > - merge notifier calls into SdMmcHcReset() and SdMmcHcInitHost (), this
> >   required changing the prototype to take a SD_MMC_HC_PRIVATE_DATA*
> argument
> >   and so the prototypes no longer belong in SdMmcPciHci.h and have been
> moved
> >   to SdMmcPciHcDxe.h
> > - use VOID* type for capability not UINT64* since we don't know its
> alignment
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - use a singleton instance of the SD/MMC protocol rather than one per
> >   controller; this is needed to support 'reconnect -r', as pointed out
> >   by Ray
> > - use EDKII prefixes for all types defined by the protocol
> > - replace 'hook' with 'notify', and tweak some other identifiers
> > - add missing function comment headers for factored out functions
> >
> > Changes since RFC/v1:
> > - add EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL* member to override methods
> > - use UINT64* not VOID* to pass capability structure (which is always 64 bits
> >   in size)
> >
> > Ard Biesheuvel (2):
> >   MdeModulePkg: introduce SD/MMC override protocol
> >   MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: allow HC capabilities to be overridden
> >
> 
> OK, so I did send my v4 but I couldn't find it in my mail folders :-)
> 
> Comments anyone?

I still need some time to evaluate whether the current proposed override
protocol can be utilized in our using scenario.

Will let you know the feedbacks as soon as I finish the evaluation.

Really sorry for the delay.

Best Regards,
Hao Wu

> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel